We (the public) are getting an easement that permanently extinguishes Hancock's ability to subdivide the property and develop it. What I wish they would do (and they could if they wanted to) is get a recreation easement as part of the package so that in exchange for the subsidy (and not to mention the property tax subsidy timberlands have received over the last 40+ yrs) we wouldn't have to put up with bs like the Tokul annual pass. This is the same arrangement that keeps the private timberland next to Tolt-MacDonald from getting subdivided.

I hate to say it, but you need development for the tax base. Look at Cougar mountain and see all of the million+$ homes and a park that is unusable to the bikers. Then Grand Ridge with more million dollar homes with trails.
With the County spending 2 billion on a sewer treatment plant and another 711 million on a CSO project (if it doesn't go over budget). That is just for poo.

We need more people to help pay for these and other projects, Ugh.. I can't believe I just said that...

Tom, there's a big difference between property close in like the Green Crow stuff at Tolt and this property out in the middle of f'n nowhere. I can't even imagine this property ever being developed. And, if it was, it would be zoned 5-10 and there's nothing wrong with that. That would leave more trees on it than logging it as it is now... For that much money, we should at the very least not have to pay for access to play.

The county actually payed money to block development? In Oregon they blocked subdivisions and development in the 80's and didn't pay anyone a dime. Remember is it is the government that approves subdivisions so King county just dropped $11Meg on something they could have done for free.

For a long time everyone thought 5-10-acre zoning would stop sprawl. Then Microsoft happened. Then everyone thought 40-80-acre zoning would stop sprawl. It slows it down but doesn't stop it. In King County we've concluded there's no "nowhere" til you're inside the national forest boundaries. Sven, the tax breaks subsidize the landowners' holding costs until they decide to "rotate crops" as it were. The $11M is cheap insurance against changing politics/policy at the county level, but yes Borneo we should get public access for that money as well.

So, we all pay high taxes in King County to give $11,000,000 to Hancock and still have to pay a fee to ride on land we are preserving. This seems screwed up. With the cost of sewer treatment improvements $3,000,000,000 as of late and the rumors of storm water treatment ( untold amount), and we give millions to a corporation who continues to profit and we still have to pay to ride....??????....

I like these deals. They do prevent sprawl, they preserve working forests, and there's plenty of suburban land that can be developed to a higher density to accommodate population growth. Look at the 100 year value of this, not just today.

$11M for a permanent buyout of development rights on a parcel this size seems like a reasonable investment in our future. The additional cost of sewer, etc for a few developments would easily cost more. Yes, I too would like to see recreation easement be part of the deal for these transactions.

What Juice said. A permanent, no fee, recreational easement should be part of these deals though. And, while it's nice to see the acquisition I certainly question the budgeting skills of KC.

And, not to defend Hancock, but they're not the ones that directly benefit the most from this. They're in the business of timberland management, not ownership. These tree farms are investment by others, like pension funds, foundations, etc. that Hancock manages. Yes, you may be paying a fee to your own pension fund to ride at Tokul.

"We develop and manage globally diversified timberland portfolios for public and corporate pension plans, high net-worth individuals, and foundations and endowments." From Hancock's website

Originally Posted by juice

I like these deals. They do prevent sprawl, they preserve working forests, and there's plenty of suburban land that can be developed to a higher density to accommodate population growth. Look at the 100 year value of this, not just today.

$11M for a permanent buyout of development rights on a parcel this size seems like a reasonable investment in our future. The additional cost of sewer, etc for a few developments would easily cost more. Yes, I too would like to see recreation easement be part of the deal for these transactions.